Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd., (2000) 137 O.A.C. 79 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 137 O.A.C. 79 (CA)

Huras v. Primerica Financial Services (2000), 137 O.A.C. 79 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.032

Cindy Huras (moving party/respondent) v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd. (responding party/appellant)

(M26174; C34178)

Indexed As: Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Finlayson and Carthy, JJ.A,  and Simmons, J.(ad hoc)

October 16, 2000.

Summary:

Primerica operated a program in which people trained while working. Huras took part in the program, and filed a class action suit against Primerica, alleging, inter alia, that it did not pay the trainees minimum wage, as required under the Employment Standards Act. Primerica sought a stay of the proceedings, based on an arbitration clause in the contract signed by trainees.

In a decision reported at [2000] O.T.C. 533, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion. Primerica appealed. Huras moved to quash the appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the motion.

Arbitration - Topic 8704

Judicial review - Practice - Appeals - Jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 7446 ].

Courts - Topic 7446

Provincial courts - Ontario - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - General - Primerica operated a program in which people trained while working - Huras filed a class action suit against Primerica, alleg­ing, inter alia, that it did not pay minimum wage - Primerica sought a stay based on an arbi­tration clause in the contract between the parties - The Ontario Superior Court dis­missed the motion - In obiter, the trial judge said that the clause was invalid under the Arbitration Act - Primerica appealed - Huras moved to quash the appeal - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the motion - The Act provided that there was no appeal from the decision - However, the obiter remarks as to the merits of the case made the decision sub­ject to review - Further, if the decision stood, neither party would have any means of redress.

Cases Noticed:

T1T2 Limited Partnership v. Canada (1994), 23 O.R.(3d) 66 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

Deluce Holdings Inc. v. Air Canada (1992), 12 O.R.(3d) 131 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Simmons v. London (City) (1997), 43 O.T.C. 143; 32 C.C.E.L.(2d) 150 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Lovat Tunnel Equipment Inc. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Bab Systems Inc. v. McLurg, [1995] O.J. No. 1344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co. (1924), 264 U.S. 109, refd to. [para. 14].

Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. America (1956), 350 U.S. 198, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c. 17, sect. 6, sect. 7(1), sect. 7(2), sect. 7(3), sect 7(4), sect. 7(5), sect. 7(6) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Charles M. Wright, Michael D. Wright, and Mia London, for the moving party;

Larry Lowenstein and Derek Bell, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 14, 2000, before Finlayson and Carthy, JJ.A., and Simmons, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Finlayson, J.A., released the following decision for the court on October 16, 2000.